berettaprofessor
New member
The movie could easily be done without the sex scenes...well, maybe except the congressman in the car. All the sex in the book was pretty out-of-place.
Unintended Consequences The Movie?-
- Thread starter Alaska Roy
- Start date
If you enjoyed the book, you would enjoy the movie, if it was done fairly faithfully to the book.
However, one of the things that made the book's impact so strong was that the terrible excesses of Ruby Ridge and Waco (to name just a couple) were still fresh in our minds. The govt was still actively pursuing its virtual war on gun owners. And we were the villians to many people in those days.
9/11 hadn't happened. There was no war on terrorism, nor had the majority of the public woken up to the fact that private firearms ownership (expecially of NFA weapons) was NOT the dangerous evil thing the antis spent so much time and money making it out to be.
Much as I dislike our current administration, the one thing that they are NOT doing is making a full court press against gun owners, unlike the previous democrat administration did.
Even if the movie was made true to the book, without Hollywood, in today's climate, there would not be much public appeal or sympathy for Henry Bowman, particularly with the tactics he wound up using. Those of us who were there in those days would still cheer, but those who aren't part of the gun culture would not. Quite the opposite, I think. And young adult viewers who haven't read the book would be just lost.
Add in the fact that the establisment media would virtually mess their pants in joy, demonizing not only the characters and their actions but the basic principles involved, and bringing gun ownership back into the public eye again in the most unfavorable light they can?...no, I can't really support the idea of a movie, not one for general theater distribution, anyway.
By anyone's standards, Henry and his friends became domestic terrorists. They didn't set out to be that, they were forced into it (as they saw it), and they didn't target "innocent" members of the general public, but they were terrorists. Freedom Fighters, are terrorists, until, and unless they win. And even though we may have sympathy for a just cause, its all in one's point of view, what is, and is not a just cause.
I think that if it were made into a movie, it would give tremendous "ammo" to those who already want our civil liberites curtailed. They would focus on what Henry & co. did, and not why they felt they had to do it, and beat the drum loud and long for more laws and restrictions, to "keep it from happeneing here!"
I just don't see that have a good effect for us.
Now, sold direct to video, to a targeted market? I'd buy a copy.
However, one of the things that made the book's impact so strong was that the terrible excesses of Ruby Ridge and Waco (to name just a couple) were still fresh in our minds. The govt was still actively pursuing its virtual war on gun owners. And we were the villians to many people in those days.
9/11 hadn't happened. There was no war on terrorism, nor had the majority of the public woken up to the fact that private firearms ownership (expecially of NFA weapons) was NOT the dangerous evil thing the antis spent so much time and money making it out to be.
Much as I dislike our current administration, the one thing that they are NOT doing is making a full court press against gun owners, unlike the previous democrat administration did.
Even if the movie was made true to the book, without Hollywood, in today's climate, there would not be much public appeal or sympathy for Henry Bowman, particularly with the tactics he wound up using. Those of us who were there in those days would still cheer, but those who aren't part of the gun culture would not. Quite the opposite, I think. And young adult viewers who haven't read the book would be just lost.
Add in the fact that the establisment media would virtually mess their pants in joy, demonizing not only the characters and their actions but the basic principles involved, and bringing gun ownership back into the public eye again in the most unfavorable light they can?...no, I can't really support the idea of a movie, not one for general theater distribution, anyway.
By anyone's standards, Henry and his friends became domestic terrorists. They didn't set out to be that, they were forced into it (as they saw it), and they didn't target "innocent" members of the general public, but they were terrorists. Freedom Fighters, are terrorists, until, and unless they win. And even though we may have sympathy for a just cause, its all in one's point of view, what is, and is not a just cause.
I think that if it were made into a movie, it would give tremendous "ammo" to those who already want our civil liberites curtailed. They would focus on what Henry & co. did, and not why they felt they had to do it, and beat the drum loud and long for more laws and restrictions, to "keep it from happeneing here!"
I just don't see that have a good effect for us.
Now, sold direct to video, to a targeted market? I'd buy a copy.
carguychris
New member
Red Dawn was about a Soviet invasion, it was released during the Cold War, and its protagonists were idealized, patriotic, and attractive American teenagers who were easy to sympathize with. The plot fed into ordinary American's fears of a Soviet military juggernaut that they could personally do nothing to stop. (On an aside, this movie would probably flop today, considering that I've had several conversations with teenagers asking me what Communism and/or the Soviet Union were, and why they were such a big deal to my generation... but I digress.
)IMHO most Americans do not fear their government to the degree that they would sympathize with the characters in an Unintended Consequences movie. They may be upset with the government, they may think certain government actors are incompetent, but they lack the palpable fear needed to make this plot accessible.
This plot change is irrelevant to Tom Servo's point. The movie shared the comic book's non-sequential timeline and its vast array of characters and subplots. Mainstream moviegoers got confused by this and lost interest.
All this, PLUS the post-9/11 angle brought up by 44Amp, and you've got a recipe for a screenplay that the major studios will ignore in droves.
Polemics dressed as novels or movies don't do well. Look at what happened with the recent Ayn Rand/ Atlas Shrugged flop.
While a movie about freedom fighter/terrorists would at least have more action; there still has to be lots of exposition so that people unfamiliar with the story can keep up.
If you remove the polemics to advance the story and cut back on exposition, you'll end up with a movie that won't appeal to fans of the novel.
Removal of the political view point causes another problem. It removes the whole reason for the protagonist to kill off a bunch of federal agents that weren't involved in the original bad act.
While a movie about freedom fighter/terrorists would at least have more action; there still has to be lots of exposition so that people unfamiliar with the story can keep up.
If you remove the polemics to advance the story and cut back on exposition, you'll end up with a movie that won't appeal to fans of the novel.
Removal of the political view point causes another problem. It removes the whole reason for the protagonist to kill off a bunch of federal agents that weren't involved in the original bad act.
"It removes the whole reason for the protagonist to kill off a bunch of federal agents that weren't involved in the original bad act"
that like saying it not ok to kill SS officers that had nothing to do.they could ahve dont something but they made thier choice to do nothing.
that like saying it not ok to kill SS officers that had nothing to do.they could ahve dont something but they made thier choice to do nothing.
"Much as I dislike our current administration, the one thing that they are NOT doing is making a full court press against gun owners..."
Umm 44 AMT does the term "Gun Walker" with its horrendes loss of life on both sides of the border by planned and executed by ATF, the AG and POTUS ring a bell anyplace?
Umm 44 AMT does the term "Gun Walker" with its horrendes loss of life on both sides of the border by planned and executed by ATF, the AG and POTUS ring a bell anyplace?
Sure it does Sulaco2, along with Fast & Furious, and I assure you I have been keeping informed on that situation, however, I stand by my statement...
I did mean to imply that the usual suspects and their groups are doing nothing against gun owners and our rights, only that they are not doing it as their main priority, and not with the determination of previous administrations.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, the 94 AWB,etc. all are not what we are expiriencing today. This is a touchy subject, and I will try and refrain from ranting, but compared to what has happened before, what is going on today is far from what I would consider a "full court press", in my opinion.
The three biggest things to block the all out assault we were under from happening today are 1) the actual success of passing the 94 AWB; 2) 9/11 attacks, and peoples realization about personal firearms in light of that, and 3) the Heller vs DC Supreme Court decision.
The passage of the 94 AWB, on a single vote, and the summer before an election created a backlash that brought home to politicians just how risky for them gun control is. While the press focused on the Contract with America, the politicians knew it was the gun control issure that lost the Democrats majority in Congress, for the first time in 40 years.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11 opened a lot of people's eyes about a lot of things. One result was a huge drop in general public support for gun control groups. Seems that there might be more important things to focus on.
And finally, the Supreme Court decision clearly stated that while the govt is within its power to regulate, it does not have the authority to ban ownership of whole classes of arms (such as handguns).
Adding all these up (and a few more besides) the policital climate of the nation will not tolerate more gun control laws. Despite attempts to generate the outrage and hysteria needed for passing more laws, so far it has failed. They are not doing nothing, sad to say, but what they are doing isn't very much, compared to what they would like to be able to do.
+1 44 on what you said.
I would note in passing that AG Holder while admitting he maybe was not fully truthful in his prior testimony before congress stated flat out that what is needed in more gun control, a phrase parroted by several other trolls in the Government. It would seem that after creating the crisis and deaths in Mexico and the US as a planned operation that did not "go wrong", (the only thing wrong in his view is we found out about it), (it went totally to plan), he is now prevented realistically from implementing O’s “under the radar” plan for more restrictions mostly because of what you rightly pointed out. If not for the last congressional elections this would NOT be the case. What the government has done is not only lawless but something you would have seen in a Soviet client state in the 70’s to suppress any hint of rebellion in a conquered populace. The lawless use of private gun sales to cause a planned number of deaths in another country to promote more restrictive gun laws, in this one, outside the near act of war involved with a soveron nation, amounts to a group of zealots that do not think about losing just getting more power. This is IMHO a VERY active counter Intel type activity of a government bent on subjugation of us all at any cost.
I would note in passing that AG Holder while admitting he maybe was not fully truthful in his prior testimony before congress stated flat out that what is needed in more gun control, a phrase parroted by several other trolls in the Government. It would seem that after creating the crisis and deaths in Mexico and the US as a planned operation that did not "go wrong", (the only thing wrong in his view is we found out about it), (it went totally to plan), he is now prevented realistically from implementing O’s “under the radar” plan for more restrictions mostly because of what you rightly pointed out. If not for the last congressional elections this would NOT be the case. What the government has done is not only lawless but something you would have seen in a Soviet client state in the 70’s to suppress any hint of rebellion in a conquered populace. The lawless use of private gun sales to cause a planned number of deaths in another country to promote more restrictive gun laws, in this one, outside the near act of war involved with a soveron nation, amounts to a group of zealots that do not think about losing just getting more power. This is IMHO a VERY active counter Intel type activity of a government bent on subjugation of us all at any cost.